Justice v. Hinchman, No. 2:2017cv02369 - Document 23 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting 12 Motion filed by Dr. Hinchman to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment; and DISMISSES this action; the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/27/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION HOWARD LEE JUSTICE, JR. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-02369 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL MEDICAL UNIT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Dr. Hinchman’s (“Dr. Hinchman”) motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 12.) By Standing Order entered in this case on April 17, 2017, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations for Disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on May 2, 2018, recommending that this Court grant Dr. Hinchman’s motion and dismiss this civil action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), and West Virginia Code §§ 251A-2(c) and 55-7B-6. (See ECF No. 21.) The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Objections to the PF&R were due on May 21, 2018. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 21), GRANTS Dr. Hinchman’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 12), and DISMISSES this action. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: July 27, 2018

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.